In this week’s episode of China Insider, Miles Yu breaks down the latest round of trade talks between the United States and China as both sides agree to a 90-day extension for continued negotiations toward a potential trade deal. Next, Miles covers the rising public outrage in Sichuan province over local law enforcement’s alleged mishandling of a violent school bullying incident in Jiangyou City. Lastly, Miles comments on the rising anti-Japanese sentiment across China that coincides with the eightieth anniversary of Japanese surrender ending World War II in the Pacific.
China Insider is a weekly podcast project from Hudson Institute’s China Center, hosted by China Center Director and Senior Fellow, Dr. Miles Yu, who provides weekly news that mainstream American outlets often miss, as well as in-depth commentary and analysis on the China challenge and the free world’s future.
Episode Transcript
This transcription is automatically generated and edited lightly for accuracy. Please excuse any errors.
Miles Yu:
Welcome to China Insider, a podcast from the Hudson Institute’s China Center. I am Miles Yu, Senior Fellow and Director of the China Center. Join me each week for our analysis of the major events concerning China, China threat, and their implications to the US and beyond.
Colin Tessier-Kay:
It is Tuesday, August 12th and we have three topics this week. First, we look into the ongoing trade talks between the US and China and what we can expect moving forward from both sides and speculate on the potential outcomes. Second, we cover the public outrage in Sichuan over a horrific school bullying incident and the brutal response of local government and police to the rising protests. Lastly, we observe the 80th anniversary of Japanese surrender ending World War II in the Pacific and Asia, and examined China’s rising anti-Japanese sentiment to assess what lessons we can apply to today. Miles, great to be with you again this week.
Miles Yu:
Nice to be with you again, Colin.
Colin Tessier-Kay:
Up first this week, US and Chinese officials agreed to seek an extension of their 90-day tariff truce in Stockholm, following two days of self-described “constructive” talks to deescalate the ongoing trade war according to a Reuters report, while no major breakthroughs were announced from this latest round, President Trump, at least for now elected to extend the truce that was due to expire on August 12th up to 90 days rather than return to tariff rates of over a hundred percent. So, Miles, to start us off here, what should we know about the latest round of talks and were they actually as constructive as both sides said they were?
Miles Yu:
I think there is kind of face-saving statements on both sides and China basically doesn’t say much, but they held back the usual attacks on the US policy. The United States has been talking a lot. I mean the major interlocutors with (the) Chinese Sector of Treasury, Sector of Commerce, and also our trade representative on TV all the time. They’re saying, “yeah, we’re making positive progress,” but there’s no specifics. This is very typical of dealing with China. There’s always the hope, but then there’s no actual progress. That basically is the traditional pattern. However, I think right now the US administration’s approach is to corral China into a corner and force them to the negotiation table and to (make them) realize if you don’t cooperate with us, and then here’s something we have done to others, right? India, in the case of a secondary sanction in purchasing in Russian oil, or some other Southeast Asian countries that has done shipping on behalf of Chinese. Also, we struck a deal with the EU, right? That’s a very big deal. With Japan, South Korea, all the other countries, China thought they could basically go wrong and there’s no way. That’s why China has to really do this.
But the main purpose as stated by President Trump is that we’re going to open up China. China’s market remains closed. Whenever I hear that, I mean, it’s always amazing to me to hear we still talking about this more than 55 years after Nixon’s visit to China. When Richard Nixon went to China, his primary focus was to open up China to the rest of the world. That “open it up” has been publicly and internationally recognized as a grand failure. China remained closed. We basically have enriched a Chinese Communist Party’s dictatorship, and now the dictatorship comes back to haunt us. In other words, our own creation has come back to haunt the creator. That’s basically the problem. Even in a much larger historical perspective, you can see the whole purpose of China’s interaction with the rest of the world since the time of the Opium War - we’re talking about 1839, 1840 - has been how to figure out a way, equitable way, to make China open reciprocally to the rest of the world. That has been the lesson. That’s why there’s the Opium War, even though the Opium War was triggered by the sales of opium, (an) illicit drug deal. But the British at the time, when they declared war on China, it was not really just about opium, it was about opening up China to the rest of the world. It’s a free trade global system now. China was forced to sign the treaty, but then China was in no mood to honor those treaty. That’s why there was a second Opium War. You can see this is a historical cycle. The cycle has not ended. I think, hopefully, we’ll have something much larger in our mind when we negotiate with China. This is not just a one singular reconcentrated government. It is a government of history, government of ideological hostility to the United States. Basically, we’ll see who’s going to win.
Another thing is, of course, the focus of the American administration is to make a deal with China. Well, China basically has adopted (an) attitude of deal or no deal. We have strategic patience - as I said in Washington DC all the time - because we are a country (that) runs the largest trade deficit with China. Normally, that deficit put us in a good position when it comes to tariffs. So, we’ll see. China is predominantly an export-focus-oriented economy. US market is very important for (the) Chinese economy. So, that’s the calculation. We’ll see how long China can hold on.
Even if we did stick (to) the deal, on the other hand, the key, the crucial element of any dealings with China is not to fund the deal that (it) sign(s) onto, (but) whether China is willing and would honor those deals. I mean, the record has not been really that great. You can go back to see (that) recently people are talking about this monumental 1984 Chinese-British Joint Declaration about Hong Kong. China violated virtually every single one of the pledges in that as a result of a deal.
And then, you can talk about China adopted the United Nations Covenant on law of the Sea, UNCLOS, which was 1982. It was very early, but in annex seven, part seven, of that UNCLOS law, there is a particular clause, that is, all parties, signature parties, must comply with the binding arbitrary awards. China violated that. About nine years ago, the tribunal based in Hague ruled (that) China’s nine-dash line claim in the South China Sea had no legal basis and found China’s activities in the South China Sea violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights. China basically rejected all that (and) has not complied at all.
You can talk about that even earlier on. There is the Convention Against Torture. China is notorious in this regard. The Convention Against Torture also had this clause about refugee convention, that is, to prohibit forcefully return. China routinely forcefully returns those Korean refugees, for example, back to North Korea to face the extreme punishment.
WTO is another prime example. In 2001, China was admitted in WTO not based upon China’s economic in reality, which it should be, but based upon China’s promise, what were they going to do once it’s joined, which is a mistake. So, we should never admit China into any international conventions based upon China’s promises. (It should be) based upon what China is, but not China will be. In the WTO accession negotiation, China promised it was going to open up the market, and they’re going to conduct a non-discrimination policy, IP - intellectual property - protections, transparency, and, basically, stop(ping) forced technology transfer. None of that China has really honored.
There (are) persistent Chinese violations of virtually every major international treaty or deals it has made. If you look at all this pattern, I’m not really that crazy about seeking a deal with China. You talk about border, our border agreements with India in 1993, 1996 and 2013. China claimed to India that they were going to do everything to keep peace and tranquility along the line of actual control. No unilateral status quo changes, and the limit is (that) no forces and the behavior. This is China’s pledge, but yet since then, China seized every opportunity to violate that, which culminated in the tragic clash of April and May of 2020 when China decided and attempted to unilaterally change the status quo in the western sector, and the actions seriously disturbed the peace under agreements with India. That’s why you see China is not a country that should be trusted by any international side. That’s one of the reasons why (in) the Bush’s first term, there was a very strong propensity in Washington to not treat China with “trust but verify”, but you have to start with “distrust but verify”. That’s the appropriate approach.
Colin Tessier-Kay:
Secretary Bessant commented that there would likely be at least another meeting between the US and Chinese officials toward the end of the new moratorium. China’s top trade negotiator from the latest round Li Chenggang (李成钢) issued a statement in effect saying that the US and China would maintain communication channels, exchanged timely views on economic and trade matters, and still attempt to strengthen bilateral economic and trade relations. But based on that historical context of deals with China and bilateral agreements, and especially with where things currently stand with trade deals between the US, EU and the US and Japan among others, and the impact on the global economy miles, can China really afford to play the waiting game much longer, or do they actually see an advantage to waiting and drawing this out as long as possible?
Miles Yu:
Well, first of all, China is a dictatorship. Dictatorship doesn’t care about how much the Chinese people suffer. In world trade wars, actually it’s the people that really get into trouble. Chinese government can afford making these people suffer more and more, so they don’t care. I think on the other hand, though, China does have a geopolitical game. They want to have a word domination. In that case, I think we should really put our emphasis more on (the) leverage against China, not just on the hope. China will come to the table to negotiate, and the problem of hope is a very major problem in our bilateral relationship. We have to really put China under strict enforceable regulation. By a certain deadline, if you don’t come to the table, we’re going to start something automatically and to your disadvantage, that’s what to do instead of delaying and hoping for a prolonged grand deal with China in an unforeseeable future.
China tried to weary out before the midterm election comes, and then the presidential election comes in 2028, and nothing. That’s basically the Chinese tactics been practiced with superb scale. I mean, you see that in the phase one trade deal. I mean (China) basically exhausted two and a half years of Trump’s first administration. Every major China’s policy initiative has been shadowed by that prolonged negotiation. In the end, the moment the phase one trade deal with China was signed, and then COVID hit the United States coming from China. So, I mean, nothing. None of this phase one deals, any of the part of that, was seriously implemented. That’s why I think we should refocus on leverage to take any action. Only by doing so that China will listen and to be forced to comply.
Colin Tessier-Kay:
Turning to our next topic this week, public outrage continues in Jiangyou City in Sichuan Province following a truly horrific school bullying incident involving a 14-year-old girl. The police named three suspects and reported two of them had been sent to specialized schools for corrective education. Miles, can you walk us through this incident and what was it about the local police’s response really that has led to the current outrage?
Miles Yu:
Well, I think this is something that’s very interesting. It started out with a very small incident, similarly small. It’s a 14-year-old girl who was bullied by her classmates in the backyard on July 22. About 10 days later, the videos of the brutal beating, bullying, went out, and basically the public was outraged. Things like this happen all the time in China, but this time in a little tiny county in Jiangyou, Sichuan, this became a major deal.
The reason is a very indicative of Chinese reality. Number one, it shows the power of social media. The people basically were so quickly galvanized. Everybody knows what’s going on. That is basically an informed public. Number two, the people did not go on the street to protest until after the police labeled this as a minor incident of no serious consequences. People’s hatred of cops in China was so deep, so profound. When cops say things like this, lie to the public, and people get really, really outraged. So, they went to the police station to seek justice and a correction by the tens of thousands. This has become a major issue. I think therefore, first and foremost, this conflict really shows the failure of the Chinese institutions like the police, the justice system, the whole sort of a prosecutorial system. Basically, it shows people there’s no sense of safety, no sense of social justice. That’s why people are outraged. This is a failure of Chinese institution.
But also, I think this all indicated a crisis of the collapse of Chinese civil virtue and public morality. There’s no particular sympathy on part of the government of the society. People see this all the time and people become numb. The weak has been constantly bullied by the powerful. The rumor (is) that one of the bullies was the daughter of the senior official of the county. That further, whether it’s true or not, but that’s so common in China. People took it, and that really unleash enormous amount of anger among the public as well. The police reaction is also very incendiary. They reacted with no mercy. They galvanized a lot of police force, not from the country, but also neighboring regions. Cops go over here. At some point, the cops outnumber the protestors. That basically make the people so outraged that you have the confrontation.
Even worse, as I say, people in China don’t feel like they’re respected. There’s no individual dignity. Cops arrested, randomly, massive number of people. You know how to do it? They put them into livestock trucks. Those livestock trucks normally were carrying transported pigs, and they put all people arrested into the livestock trucks and paraded them in downtown. This got people really, really riled up. That especially is very, very indicative of how the Chinese view its own people, its own citizen, exercising their own constitutional rights to protest. This kind of insensitivity by the Chinese officials really pushed onto the ordinary Chinese cities a stronger sense of humiliation. Basically, (the) Chinese system is very inhumane. This is basically a lack of and the collapse of Chinese public virtue.
I’ll also add one thing. People are always puzzled why such a tiny incident could sparked a national outrage. That’s because there is one really unpleasant reality. China for the past several decades have been basically a gigantic construction site. You got hundreds of millions of people from the countryside with the countryside Hukou, household registration numbers (that) are not allowed to work and permanently stay in the city. But hundreds of millions of them went to the city to build skyscrapers, to build all kinds of infrastructures. Now Chinese economy is in the tanks and real estate collapsed. There’s no more jobs for those hundreds of millions of countryside workers. So, what happened? They all go home. They all go home. They stay around in little countries like Jiangyou without jobs, without any kind of dignity. That’s why when a little small timber could really ignite a gigantic forest fire, that’s exactly what happened.
You see, most of the people involved in the protest were unemployed. Young people. The parents of the little girl, 14-year-old girl, the victim were also unemployed. I believe her mother was mute. When she was begging, leaning down from the police begging for mercy, the scene was absolutely, outrageously, touching. That’s why people were galvanized. You see, this kind of stuff happens all the time in China. The funny thing is, in western mainstream media, there’s very little report on this kind of stuff. Chinese regime is a strong and formidable one, but that regime is based upon injustice and iron fist. There’s an enormous, enormous volcanic resentment against the regime. We should face the reality of that.
Colin Tessier-Kay:
We certainly will keep track of these movements, especially on China Insider. I’m thinking back at least the January of this year with the death of the teenage boy in Shaanxi Province and how these incidents, like you mentioned, while historically being under-reported now with the usual social media platforms resulting in wider demographic coverage, it’ll be interesting to see how these develop and influence the national level protest movements across the rest of China. But moving to our final topic for today, later this week marks the 80th anniversary of the Japanese surrender in World War II on August 15th. A few weeks back on the show, we covered Xi Jinping’s long list of preparations marking a celebration of the event and China’s victory in World War II against the Japanese occupation. As a result, it’s usually not uncommon to see anti-Japanese sentiment rise among Chinese citizens during these celebrations with varying degrees of severity depending on current geopolitical landscape. To start us off here, miles, what is the anti-Japanese sentiment like right now across China given the upcoming anniversary?
Miles Yu:
Oh, it’s extremely high. I mean, they’re just finding this anti-Japanese sentiment nationwide, nonstop through this movie, this blockbuster, called Nanjing Photo Shop (Death to Rights). I mean, they have the English name to it, which is ridiculous. It is about the Nanjing massacre that took place in December 1937 when Japanese basically broke into the Chinese capital of Nanjing during the war. This is all legitimate topic, and I think those war dead should be commemorated because they are innocent people die in the hands of foreign aggressor. However, for the Chinese Communist Party to do this, it’s like Adolf Hitler have this huge rally commemorating the victims of the Native Americans and Wounded Knee, right? It’s really ridiculous. I mean, the Chinese Communist Party is a massive murderer itself. It has killed far more Chinese (by) its own hands than any foreign aggression in history.
You can see, since Chinese Communist party took over in 1949, somewhere between 60 to 80 million Chinese were killed by the Chinese Communist Party. Now let me put that into perspective. Let’s just take this most accepted number of 70 million Chinese ordinary citizen killed by the Chinese Communist Party that is about the total casualty number of World War I and World War II together. Those Chinese died in peacetime in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party. I had a post on Twitter. I said, the history of the People’s Republic of China is the bloodiest chapter of human experience. That’s true. You have never seen a bloodier regime that killed so many of his own people during such a short period of time. The reason the Chinese Communist Party is having this massive celebration is to claim the legitimacy of its regime. It says the CCP itself is the main core fighting force and provides the leadership of anti-Japanese fighting during World War II. That is pure, pure, gobbledygook. It’s pure malarkey.
I’m a World War II historian myself by training, so I read books about this. The Chinese Communist Party by policy and by practice never became the active fighter against Japanese. The Chinese Nationalist government, the KMT, their forces were the main force and the leadership (against) the Japanese force in China. Now, by policy, what’s the policy of the Chinese Communist Party during World War II? Well, because the Soviet Union (and) Stalin prohibits the Chinese Communist Party from actively attacking the Japanese because throughout the whole war, since April, 1941, this is about half a year before Pearl Harbor, the Soviet Union and Japan signed a neutrality pact by which that the Soviet Union and all the communist parties were not supposed to attack (the) Japanese. So, anything the Chinese Communist party did against the Japanese will be prohibited by that policy. The Soviet Union observed very, very seriously (on) that neutrality pack until the last days of World War II after US dropped the bomb on Hiroshima.
The Soviet declared war on Japan August 8th, 1945. This is like about a week before the Japanese surrendered. They tried to be a spoiler of that by the time the Japanese defeat is almost inevitable. So, in reality, by practice, the Chinese Communist Party probably never fought any serious battle against the Japanese. Northern China was occupied by Japan. That’s true. But North China was also claimed by China as occupied by the Chinese Communist Party. How could it be? The only logical conclusion is that in Northern China during World War II, there was a peaceful coexistence between the Japanese, which occupied most of the hubs and the cities, and the Chinese Communist Party, which were mostly in the rural area. So, there were never any clashes over there. That’s why I’m saying. Virtually every major battle fought against Japan, either the Battle of Shanghai, Battle of Changsha, Battle of Hengyang, every single one of them was fought between the non-Communist forces and the Japanese. As a matter of fact, if you are seriously fighting against (the) Japanese, the Chinese Communist Party will intervene. They’ll prohibit you from doing so. They launched more attacks against the Japanese-fighting Chinese Nationalist troops that are fighting against Japanese. That’s a historical truth. So, for China to have this kind of charade in (the) Tiananmen Square commemorating the venture of Japan, it’s like the comedy and tragedy of supreme ridiculousness.
Colin Tessier-Kay:
Like you mentioned, while China suffered numerous tragedies under (the) Japanese occupation, the Nanjing massacre is the seminal anniversary of remembrance of the atrocities carried out by the imperial Japanese forces. You mentioned the new Chinese film recently released, called “Dead to Rights”, is making the headlines for its portrayal of the massacre. We were tracking comments on Chinese social media regarding this film. Parents even took their children to see the film, one of which wrote, “at first, first, I was worried they’d be scared, but then I realized if we can’t face history, what will we do in the future?” I think that’s a really great question to bring us to a close here today. Miles, so far as this anniversary and anti-Japanese sentiment goes every year, what lessons should we learn from these events in World War II as we approach the anniversary this week?
Miles Yu:
Well, I think the biggest tragedy of World War II is (to) give the Chinese party opportunity to rise to power and which would go on to kill 70 million Chinese in peacetime. That’s something we should commemorate. Every victim of Chinese Communist Party in China, someday we’ll have the monument in their honor. I hope so.
Colin Tessier-Kay:
That’s unfortunately all the time we have for this week. Thank you as always to our listeners for joining us again, and thank you to Miles for your expert insight in this week’s conversation. Always great to hear from you, and we’ll check back in with you again next week.
Miles Yu:
All right, looking forward to it.